only when you're not wanting to change things are you content with how things are.Retro.

Hi Retro,

I am not so sure of this statement. How are things? They are changing. We can support change for the the better or change for the worse. Of course this is going to be a matter of changing our own mind states but a crucial part of that is not being indifferent to the suffering of others in my opinion.

Kindly

Gabe

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

retrofuturist wrote:Actually, we human tolerate a lot things we do not like so much but have no choice in the matter as to whatever-it-might-be's existence. Can't do anything about it, so we tolerate it, though we might complain a bit. Sometime we should not be content with how this are. There are things that should not be tolerated.

"I cant do anything about it" That is one extreme

"I will fix this problem for good"That is the other extreme

Gabe

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

gabrielbranbury wrote: How are things? They are changing. We can support change for the the better or change for the worse. Of course this is going to be a matter of changing our own mind states but a crucial part of that is not being indifferent to the suffering of others in my opinion.

If you want to change the fire, you change the fuel. You don't reach in and try to change the flames. I think Retro is talking about the process of not adding more fuel.

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

gabrielbranbury wrote: How are things? They are changing. We can support change for the the better or change for the worse. Of course this is going to be a matter of changing our own mind states but a crucial part of that is not being indifferent to the suffering of others in my opinion.

If you want to change the fire, you change the fuel. You don't reach in and try to change the flames. I think Retro is talking about the process of not adding more fuel.

Hi Jechbi,

Of course lets not pile aversion upon the forest fire of hatred. I get it. But once we have an adequate fire break around our property to use your analogy, then it is appropriate to look for effective ways of helping to minimize the damage the fire has on others. Not just because it helps them but because it is an act of kindness and that will help to further insulate our home from the flames of hatred. Not tolerating harmful teaching can be a way of being kind. Its similar to when one calmly and with a kind demeanor doesn't allow racist speech in there presence to go uncorrected. This is something I have experience with here in the U.S. Thankfully racism here isnt upheld by traditional religious doctrine like it is in India.

Kindly

Gabe

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

christopher::: wrote:LOL, i wonder how our communication might go if we were restricted only to the single original smiley...

christopher::: wrote:Concerning tolerance, isnt the essential distinction internal, not external? We do indeed need to speak up about racism, militarism, xenophobia, religious violence and all the other crazy things humans do...

But how are you feeling about that, how are you thinking about it? If you find yourself constantly spinning thoughts and emotions related to these crazy things, the dukkha of others, that dukkha now becomes your dukkha as well.

Yes we should strive to be "optimal". If we are not "optimal" lets at least try to approximate it as best be can for now. Practice makes perfect. But lets not be afraid to admit that people don't just do crazy awful stuff. Often they do so because of what there religious tradition has taught them.

Kindly

Gabe

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

The great English-mangler and baseball manager Casey Stengel once observed, "If people won't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them."

When was there ever a time in which some did not involve themselves in foolish or harmful pursuits? EVER? The difficulty for those who do not engage in such pursuits is to recognize that just because they are right doesn't make them "right."

A student once asked my teacher, Kyudo Nakagawa Roshi, what he thought of the student's going to stay at a particular monastery. The monastery was run by a man my teacher did not hold in high esteem ... in fact, I believe, he thought the man was a fool. Nevertheless, my teacher told the student, "If you want to go, just go."

When circumstances present themselves and we are offered the opportunity to speak about foolish behavior, then we may speak up. Whether right or wrong is not so much the point. The point is to speak up as circumstances dictate and be ready to correct our own errors. More than that -- eg. imagining some goodness, virtue, correctness or whatever -- is probably too much.

genkaku wrote:The great English-mangler and baseball manager Casey Stengel once observed, "If people won't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them."

When was there ever a time in which some did not involve themselves in foolish or harmful pursuits? EVER? The difficulty for those who do not engage in such pursuits is to recognize that just because they are right doesn't make them "right."

A student once asked my teacher, Kyudo Nakagawa Roshi, what he thought of the student's going to stay at a particular monastery. The monastery was run by a man my teacher did not hold in high esteem ... in fact, I believe, he thought the man was a fool. Nevertheless, my teacher told the student, "If you want to go, just go."

When circumstances present themselves and we are offered the opportunity to speak about foolish behavior, then we may speak up. Whether right or wrong is not so much the point. The point is to speak up as circumstances dictate and be ready to correct our own errors. More than that -- eg. imagining some goodness, virtue, correctness or whatever -- is probably too much.

Just my two cents.

Thank you Genkaku,

I very much appreciate your input.

I see you as virtious and correct

and so go the imaginings...

Gabe

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

So when some unacceptable circumstance presents itself -- let's say you see that your son is standing in the path of an oncoming car -- of course you will react. You'll shout: "Get out of the way!" Or you'll run out and push him out of the way, if necessary. The good practice of tolerance is how we engage with that type of situation. Do we react with anger, yelling at the child for not being more careful, and maybe even giving the child a spanking or beating? Do we run after the car, yelling at the driver to slow down? How do we engage with that which we find unacceptable? This is samsara. Life is complicated. Tolerance is good practice.

Metta

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

gabrielbranbury wrote:But once we have an adequate fire break around our property to use your analogy ...

That wasn't my analogy. Nobody is talking about mindless indifference. That was something you added with your interpretation of Retro's post, I believe.

Metta

I meant using the analogy of fire to represent that which we might find difficult to tolerate.

Jechbi wrote:If you want to change the fire, you change the fuel. You don't reach in and try to change the flames. I think Retro is talking about the process of not adding more fuel.

Jechbi wrote:So when some unacceptable circumstance presents itself -- let's say you see that your son is standing in the path of an oncoming car -- of course you will react. You'll shout: "Get out of the way!" Or you'll run out and push him out of the way, if necessary. The good practice of tolerance is how we engage with that type of situation. Do we react with anger, yelling at the child for not being more careful, and maybe even giving the child a spanking or beating? Do we run after the car, yelling at the driver to slow down? How do we engage with that which we find unacceptable? This is samsara. Life is complicated. Tolerance is good practice.

Indeed life does seem very complicated at times. All I am saying is that we not shrink from the opportunity to point out how a teaching is not helpful and perhaps just wrong when that is how we perceive it. There are criteria we can use to look into our perception like in the Kalama Sutta.

I dont think that it is a question of acceptable or unacceptable if your son is about to be hit by a car. The very fact that you act to save your son means you have accepted that he will be hit by it if you do not act. I don't see where tolerance needs to play a role in this at all. If there is anger at the child or at the driver I would hope that I dont act out of that and just act out of what is appropriate to the situation. It might be appropriate to shout at the driver if I think it will be understood in a way which gets the driver to slow down in the future. It is possible to do such a thing without it being an expression of anger.

Kindly

Gabe

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

gabrielbranbury wrote:All I am saying is that we not shrink from the opportunity to point out how a teaching is not helpful and perhaps just wrong when that is how we perceive it.

Yes, and when it comes to that, it's a good time to practice tolerance. So in tolerance, do it without the expectation of effecting change. Cuz you probably won't change anything. And do it mindful of the baggage we inevitably bring to the table when we confront someone else about their deeply held views. And do it at the right time, not at the wrong time. That's probably the most important part. FWIW.

Metta

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

gabrielbranbury wrote:All I am saying is that we not shrink from the opportunity to point out how a teaching is not helpful and perhaps just wrong when that is how we perceive it.

Yes, and when it comes to that, it's a good time to practice tolerance. So in tolerance, do it without the expectation of effecting change. Cuz you probably won't change anything. And do it mindful of the baggage we inevitably bring to the table when we confront someone else about their deeply held views. And do it at the right time, not at the wrong time. That's probably the most important part. FWIW.

Metta

Hi Jechbi,

What you say makes sense to me. Except the defeatist attitude that you will probably not change anything. Things are always changing. I would just say that it is always possible that the person you are conversing with may not hold the view in question as deeply as it seems and that it will not take much to influence them in a new and more positive direction. I have found this to be the case often enough. So I will repeat that if tolerance means avoiding becoming agitated then it is immensely valuable and even more so if it is the basis for an effort to make an influence for the good. I would say that an effort that comes from an intention of good will is better than making no effort even if it doesn't make any discernible positive effect.

Kindly

Gabe

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

You posed a couple of questions to me, but Jechbi seems to have answered them adequately to cover anything I might say.

Time now just to add a Dhammapada quote!

As a bee gathering nectardoes not harm or disturbthe colour and fragrance of the flowerso do the wise move through the world

(Dhammapada, verse 49).

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

However, the Buddha's emphasis was on changing and perfecting the inner world... the loka as defined by the five aggregates or six senses, rather than the loka as defined conventionally by the Earth and its citizens.

The above Dhammapada quote makes sense in that context.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

appicchato wrote:Wise enough to know not to get into mindless debates...

Thank gawd I never do that...

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

appicchato wrote:Wise enough to know not to get into mindless debates...

...unless you are trying to tell me something...

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.